About Rationally Speaking

Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

The goals of atheist activism

by Massimo Pigliucci

images1.fanpop.com

Even before the recent demise of Christopher Hitchens, and before I had read two recent (and quite opposite, here and here) opinions about this, I was thinking of keyboarding a few words about the goals of atheist activism. So here we go.

The two recent opinions I came across are by Greta Christina over at FreethoughtBlogs, and by Chris Stedman at the HuffPost. They seem to agree that there are two distinct goals of atheist activism, as Christina put it: “For many atheists, the primary goal of atheist activism is to reduce anti-atheist bigotry and discrimination, and to work towards more complete separation of church and state ... For many [other] atheists, our main goal is persuading the world out of religion.” Stedman agrees on the separability of these goals, but says “I maintain significant disagreement with many religious beliefs, but I do not wish to be associated with narrow-minded, dehumanizing generalizations about religious people. I am disappointed that such positions represent atheist activism not only to the majority of our society, but to many of my fellow atheist activists as well.”

Let me make a few points about this debate, and then move on to articulate what I think are four (not one or two) objectives of atheistic activism, and to argue that we should refocus our efforts along more complex and efficacious lines than those pursued by some (but by all means not all) atheist organizations, local and national.

First off, Christina makes an argument at the beginning of her post for in-your-face atheism coupled with a nicer and gentler approach, claiming that this good cop / bad cop strategy “works.” How does she know? To quote: “hey, there’s a reason cops use it!” Interestingly, no source is provided as to the extent to which said technique is in fact used by the police, whether it works (outside of movies), and why it would be appropriate to social discourse, as opposed to dealing with criminals. But okay, let’s get to Christina’s second source of evidence.

That would be that the dual nice/in-your-face approach worked in the past, for instance with the civil rights movement, or concerning gay rights. There are two things I think we should be clear about in this context. First, atheists really ought not to compare themselves to blacks or gays, as it is an insult to people who have experienced real discrimination. Yes, it may not be politically correct to tell your co-workers or family that you are an atheist, and I’m sure some people suffer psychological consequences as a result. But atheists are not being made to sit at the back of buses, hanged from trees, put in prison, or denied voting rights qua atheist. So let’s not make unseemly comparisons.

Moreover, the “bad cops” of the civil and gay rights movements rarely went around insulting the other side, they were simply vocal about their own rights. There is a huge difference between being in-your-face in the sense of taking to the streets and loudly complaining about rights you are unjustly denied and being in-your-face in the more basic sense of hurling insults at other people.

Which reminds me. Many of my fellow atheists are nice and smart people, but there is also a tendency within the community to think that one is automatically smart just for being an atheist, as opposed to all those deluded idiots who believe in things for which there is no evidence. I don’t know about your personal experience, but I can point to a lot of religious people who are a lot smarter — by any reasonable definition of “smart” — than several atheists I have encountered. And the same goes for being ethical (or not). So, let’s tone the self-righteousness down a few notches, it is unbecoming and smells too much of religious bigotry.

Stedman also pushes his argument a bit too far in some respects, I think, but his opening example is one that has made me think a lot about what we are doing and why when I came across it independently from Stedman. He quotes Jon Stewart, not exactly a friend of religious fanaticism or illiberalism, commenting after showing a clip of American Atheists’ President Dave Silverman pulling off yet another of the publicity stunts for which AA is so (in)famous (and for which I openly have criticized them before). Stewart quipped, imitating Silverman: “As President of the American Atheists organization, I promise to make sure that everyone, even those that are indifferent to our cause, will fucking hate us.” Stewart is right, I’m afraid, and I say this as (literally) a card carrying atheist and life member of AA.

Let’s now go back to a broader discussion of our goals as a movement and a community. I actually think we have four of them, logically separable from each other, and which can of course be pursued in parallel and/or be prioritized according to each individual’s or organization’s leanings:

* Separation of Church and State. Because neither we nor a lot of religious believers want to turn the US into a theocracy, or even allow the State to mingle with religion to a significant extent, a combination that has always been pernicious in the past. Here it seems to me that the proven strategy is to build bridges with ecumenical or even individually religious groups with similar interests, following in the steps of Thomas Jefferson, who reassured the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 that the US Government would keep “a wall of separation between Church & State.”

* Acceptance of atheism. Atheists are still among the most mistrusted groups of people in America, as a consequence of which it is hard to imagine an openly atheist politician (to my knowledge there is only one) and even less a President. Now, if one’s goal is to be accepted (not just tolerated) in a society, one is more likely to achieve that goal by playing social and nice (which does not at all mean to capitulate or compromise on principles), as opposed to constantly jeering or hurling insults at other members of said society. That’s why my friend and Secular Coalition for America founder Herb Silverman often goes to interfaith breakfast meetings wearing his “Friendly Atheist Neighbor” t-shirt.

* Combating dogmatism — even internally! Atheists and freethinkers pride themselves in being free from prejudice and open minded about life, the universe and everything. Which is why our antipathy towards religion is rooted in the latter’s dogmatism. But then we ought to realize that some religions are actually not dogmatic (e.g., there is a long tradition of internal criticism within the Jewish tradition, and one of the least dogmatic religious figures of all time is the Dalai Lama), which means that not all religions are our enemies, or at least not all to the same extent. Moreover, look me in the eye and try to seriously make an argument that you’ve never seen or heard a dogmatic atheist, and we’ll have a good laugh. Let’s start by cleaning our own house, before we self-righteously pretend to (metaphorically) demolish other people’s abodes.

* Elimination (or at least reduction) of irrationalism. In a sense, of course, all religions are irrational, to the extent that they foster beliefs that are not based on evidence, or that in some cases even flatly contradict evidence. But, again, irrationalism comes in a variety of degrees and shapes, and not all of them are equally worthy of counter-efforts or even public scorn. No human being is likely capable of holding completely coherent evidence-based beliefs, so let us be reasonable and cut some slack to the mild offenders while joining forces with them against the really dangerous ones. And let’s not fall into mindless self-praise and consider a profession of atheism as ipso facto evidence for rationalism. I assure you that I know a number of atheists who hold mystical, new agey, political, or even scientific beliefs that are either unfounded or flatly contradict the available evidence.

As you can see, none of the above goals is defined in terms of the abolition of religion per se. The real targets are irrationalism and dogmatism, of which various religious beliefs are only examples, and only to a variety of degrees. And of course atheists can be irrational and dogmatic as well, if atheism is allowed to turn into an ideology to be defended at all costs. If we manage to work (together with as many other reasonable people as possible) toward a world with more critical thinking, less dogmatism, and less irrationality, the problem of religion will take care of itself, since religion is a symptom, not the root, of human evil.

83 comments:

I made a similar list a few months back (although I merged your last two). I think you left out a goal that seems particularly important to the more Greta Christina side of things, which is to combat non-state harmful religious activities.

I believed in church-state separation and combating certains kinds of dogmatism even before I became an atheist, and then for a long time before I admitted I was one. What really motivated me to identify with atheism (not convincing me of anything in particular, but encouraging me about its value as a social phenomenon) was the fact that only atheists seemed able to talk sense about religiously motivated homophobia. Of course not all actually do, but with religious progressives, there's an elephant in the room, which is that homophobia is a natural outgrowth of the misogyny and ascetic attitudes found in most older religious texts. Atheists don't fear criticizing religions for this.

So my suggestion for an addition to this list would be something like "Combating particularly religious forms of evil", not because they are uniquely irrational or uniquely bad, or because they involve the state, but because believers are simply unwilling or unable to do the job properly.

Great post Massimo. I've long had similar concerns about the atheist community in general, and some groups in particular.

The self-righteousness you mentioned almost certainly does more harm than good. Criticizing religious irrationality and absurdity is like shooting fish in a barrel (and then claiming to be a skilled hunter).

Following our natural tendency, many atheists assume that their ability to recognize religious BS transfers across domains, which itself is an unsupported irrational belief. The same is true of people who learn just enough about critical thinking to be dangerous.

ay caro massimo, You took us (me) back to french revolution times. It is not hard to imagine Greta Christina, or Benson as females Fouches, and Dennett and Hitchens, posthumously (RIP) as enforcers of the Culte de la Raison, with advice from Harris (in the background) and Dawkins as a new Berthier leading an atheist comando to capture the Pope (not likely though as Dawkins missed his chance when the Pope visited England). But it is very hard to see any 'rational" landscape where belief or religion,not only Christian, could be eliminated, here in the USA,or anywhere else.

Well most of your points are fine, but don't agree with you that playing nice always works. Well, haven't Atheists played nice all these years before the New Atheists got along ? Being nice against social stereotypes gets no where. Atheists are still equated to communists. I like the in your face style of the New Atheists and they popularizing Atheism. Well, they might not be philosophically sophisticated, but the masses like me don't have an appetite for philosophy anyways. I feel we need more Dawkins, Neil Tyson(although not a NA) and Harris style chaps, who are scientifically sophisticated and can keep audience engaged. Don't need a Dennett or other boring philosophy chaps that will put you to sleep.

Great post Massimo! I think part of what distracts from these goals is that a big part of New Atheism's goals in practice so far have been (a) "scream therapy for atheists" (paraphrasing what PZ once said) and (b) providing an "us" for an "us versus them" view of the world.

As for what "works" if one's goal is persuading society to ditch religion (which is far, far better language than "destroying" religion (Dawkins) or similar harsh language used by Coyne) -- it seems to me that a very good argument can be made that, in those European countries that are now mostly nonreligious, yelling at people had very little to do with it, and wealth, education, and especially soccer games on Sunday on the tellie were the major influence.

@jeremybee: No, it's not a religious concept, it's a concept shared by practically everyone, but on which religious people have their own rather daft metaphysical take.

To abandon the concept merely because religious people use it would be a massive mistake, as massive as abandoning the concept "water" because the ancients wrongly defined water as an element. The concept of "human evil" cuts reality at the joints. For example, the government of Uzbekistan has sometimes seen fit to torture people by boiling them alive. I can't think of a better word than "evil" for that, can you? And yet I don't think I've just made an implicit metaphysical claim or anything.

> Being nice against social stereotypes gets no where. Atheists are still equated to communists. <

I doubt that (metaphorically) spitting in other people's faces does any good though.

> I feel we need more Dawkins, Neil Tyson(although not a NA) and Harris style chaps <

Neil, as you pointed out, is not a NA, and I suspect he would loathe being associated with that crowd. He is more of a Sagan type, the kind of scientist and public speaker that actually does good to science and secularism.

> Don't need a Dennett or other boring philosophy chaps that will put you to sleep <

I find this a remarkable statement, considering that atheism is a philosophical worldview, and that atheists typically pride themselves in being more intellectual than the run of the mill religious person.

It might be worth recasting the latter two objectives in positive language; e.g. "promotion of openness" and "promotion of scientific rationalism."

Defining the ideal to be affirmed will likely be less troublesome than identifying all the potential anti-ideals to be negated...and, of course, I suspect the positive phrasing will sound less threatening.

Just because atheists aren't burnt at the stake in this century doesn't mean that we shouldn't seek kinship with other minorities. I don't think they would feel insulted if we mentioned that countless atheists have been tortured, killed, and imprisoned for thought-crimes.

Also, you wouldn't want to insult those atheists that have been persecuted in this century. Kids bullied. Parents hounded. Disowned atheists. Ostracized atheists. Someone that lies to their boss to keep their job. Anyone that took offense from the thousands of death threats on Facebook and Twitter recently. Anyone that has a hard time hearing a former president say that atheists aren't real Americans. I mean, we're merely the most mistrusted minority around. Don't be offended that someone would rather leave their kids with a black, Muslim lesbian than an atheist. Consider yourself lucky to not have to babysit!

After all, if we have nothing to complain about, then why are we having this discussion?

Hi folks check this blog post out. Being rational thinkers I hope you read it.Oh bye the way I have a question. Why would an atheist say RIP ( Requiescant in Pace ) to a dead person? Perhaps they are of the God haunted type in the article.

As usual, agreed with your take on the "issues" with Gnu Atheism, Massimo. That said, just as some Gnus already on this thread are saying "being nice will go nowhere with theists," I doubt hardcore Gnus want to find common ground even with non-theists whom they call "accommodationist."

So, while I have no problem pointing out Gnus' illogic and dogmatism myself when it pops up, I don't expect them to change. Further comment on this thread will probably prove that out.

Well keyboarded Massimo, as always. It has dawned on me recently that, to me, religion can be defined as the contemplation and possibly experiencing of (without understanding) the unknown. The Unknown I would define as that which science has not been able or attempted to explain. Thereby, science and religion can co-exist complimentarily and happily side-by-side. I hereby insist that all the world adopt my definition, and that should solve all religion-based problems. It would be hard to be dogmatic about the admittedly unknown (although we would find a way, and do everyday, but nonetheless...)...

P.S. In my experience the cops really do use the good cop/bad cop method and it seems to work. 'Nuff said.

Massimo, if you don't already have one, I'd like to buy you a subscription to Freethought Today. This monthly newsletter contains, without exaggerations, dozens and dozens of cases where atheists and agnostics have been harassed, vandalized, beaten, and worse. This is particularly so for open atheists in the Bible Belt. So I think it is not at all unreasonable to compare atheists to blacks and gays.

Let me know if you wish to take me up on this offer, or whether you want to remain in the dark. You can find my e-mail address easily with a google search.

religion |riˈlijən|nounthe belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion.• details of belief as taught or discussed : when the school first opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics.• a particular system of faith and worship : the world's great religions.• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion.

> Just because atheists aren't burnt at the stake in this century doesn't mean that we shouldn't seek kinship with other minorities. <

Of course, I simply meant to say that what modern day atheists (as opposed to, say, Giordano Bruno, who was of course not an atheist anyway) are suffering is simply not in the same ballpark as black and gay struggles during the 20th century, and that we risk coming across as overly melodramatic if we do compare ourselves to them.

Jeffrey,

> Let me know if you wish to take me up on this offer, or whether you want to remain in the dark. <

I can assure you that I am familiar with Freethought Today. But, again, I think that making the parallel between, say, being bullied and being hanged is simply ridiculous.

I do not agree with you that "evil" is a religious construct. The degree to which all humans are similarly "wired" by evolutionary forces to function as social creatures, not just individuals makes a compelling argument for behaviors that any human would regard as "evil." Jesse Bering hints at such evolved behavior in his latest book, though Dacher Keltner's "Born to be Good" paints a good picture of our common evolved sensibilities.

I realize you believe what you said to be true, but think about this objectively - do you honestly think that any human group, in whatever state of social evolution, doesn't think the same (mostly) behaviors unacceptable to the group? Our proclivity to shamanism may have ensured some religious leader in every instance would rise to label it "evil" and take credit for leading the rest of the group along the path of righteousness, but that doesn't mean he (and the emergent religions following such people) made the behavior unacceptable. WE did - we social hominids who have built this inter-webby thing-a-ma-jig.

On another note (related to other comments, not yours specifically), I submit we've always had atheists in our midst, whether they'd call themselves that or not. Really, does anyone think Galileo wasn't? Leibniz? An atheist is (in the words of Penn Jillette) anyone who confronts the "spiritual" honestly & says (at least to her or himself), "I don't know..."

Srikar: "Well, haven't Atheists played nice all these years before the New Atheists got along?"

I doubt it. There have been not-nice atheists for quite a while. I remember seeing them on JREF, Internet Infidels, etc., even before Sam Harris became a public figure and Dawkins published The God Delusion. And if you want to go back further than that, Madalyn Murray O'Hair was downright infamous for being in-your-face.

> But, again, I think that making the parallel between, say, being bullied and being hanged is simply ridiculous.

Is Greta Christina really drawing that parallel by pointing out how certain methods have worked in the past? I'm no philosopher, but it doesn't seem to follow from what she has written on her blog. If I say to my kids that if we are really serious about studying the stars we should use a telescope, am I comparing myself to Gallileo?

Christina also points to the Overton Window - I would be interested to hear your take on this.

As for Good cop-Bad Cop, there is a de-classified CIA manual from the 80s extolling its virtues kicking around the internet. It's not hard to find.

@Ken Dunn,*The degree to which all humans are similarly "wired" by evolutionary forces to function as social creatures, not just individuals makes a compelling argument for behaviors that any human would regard as "evil."*

Humans, but not necessarily the animals, etc., that we have descended/evolved from. Animals trust and distrust, fear, suspect, deceive, etc., just as we do. But we ask why, and have long formed our beliefs as explanations.The great central theme that runs through our literature is not just that of safety and danger, good fortune and bad fortune, etc., but good and evil as somehow forces of nature. Evil (as you put in scare quotes) thus becoming a cultural artifact of our language.But the forces inside us that do the "evil" that some others see may be seen by more of those others as good, etc. These are phenomena of relative value, yet you've argued that evil has the sort of certain form that we all will know it when we see it. Straight out of our innately superstitious and religiously cultural human heritage.

@Ken Dunn,It dawns on me that you've perhaps concluded that it's I that believes there are forces of evil, and feels that atheists and others that use the term are misusing it. But that's exactly wrong as to my beliefs, etc., which are that there are no evil forces out there, period.

I think coming out of the closet to friends/co-workers and being seen as normal does as much as anything to help our cause. Many Christians would be amazed that I take my kids to the park with our atheist friends, watch the Superbowl, etc. instead of burning down churches and flinging babies from bridges. Massimo, during a recent podcast you stated one of the most effective debate strategies to win over the audience was to simply be seen as nice and normal. I just don't think we can win this "battle" by only talking about evolutionary evidence and listing logical fallacies.

good point, but I don't think the analogy is fitting. I can't read Christina's mind, but I come across the atheists - civil rights movements comparison all too often, and it seems to me way out of bounds.

Jeffrey Shallit,

one more time, I know there are occasionally bad treatments of atheists. I simply don't think they rise anywhere near the same level, and to insist in the comparison is a distortion of both history and current reality.

About the good cop / bad cop,

interesting links, I'll take a look. The point remains that: a) Christina did not provide evidence for her claim; b) theists are not criminals.

Bravo, Massimo! I have been appalled at the degree to which some of the NA's "stars" have come to sound like right-wing radio blowhards. Worldview aside, the tactics are chillingly similar: scathing contempt for any differing view, the self-congratulation, and the dehumanizing ridicule of opponents, to name a few. I hope that your rational appeal reaches a significant portion of atheists.

one more time, I know there are occasionally bad treatments of atheists.

Murder is more than just "bad treatment".

And, if you would read Freethought Today, you would know that the "bad treatment" (including harassment, vandalism, and sometimes murder) isn't "occasional"; it is routine for many atheists, especially those living in the Bible belt.

I simply don't think they rise anywhere near the same level, and to insist in the comparison is a distortion of both history and current reality.

I would say that the way atheists are treated today in the Bible Belt is actually worse, on average, than the way gays and blacks are treated.

Your eyes are still wide shut, and it's clear that they won't be opened anytime soon. Sad, really.

Dude, do you work for Freethought Today? Massimo's argument is not only valid, he is completely considering and listening to your side. Unfortunately, you are so busy trying to cram FT down his throat, you won't take a moment to just HEAR that he realizes people get murdered but that an eye for an eye is EXACTLY where theology goes wrong. For one second, stop with the eyes wide shut analogy, and simply realize that, while you have differing opinions on how to go about combating the issue of nonacceptance for Atheism, you both realize that the problems - ever murders - are a reality.

Good stuff. Over at the Humanist Community Project (Harvardhumanist.org) I am writing a series of posts on persuasion and activism called The Freethinkers' Political Textbook. These posts address some of the points raised here, harnessing the best evidence to shed light on these often hotly-contested discussions. You can find the whole series here:

Good points in your comments about how our species differs from other animals.

Hmmm, our exchange nicely points out an important facet of what Massimo gets at in the article - civil discourse over disagreements refines the points of departure for resolution (or illuminates the disagreements as simply communicative differences). Like him, it truly pains me to read the militant rantings of some fellow atheists. Being "right" proffers no inherent reward (no karma points, no salvation).

Our "atheist mission" (if there really is one) is to awaken the minds of our fellow sentient animals. That requires educating & convincing - people change their OWN minds (browbeating them is woefully ineffective).

of course murder is not just bad treatment, but it is also exceedingly rare, and once again I think you are way off the mark in the comparison with what blacks were suffering in the South for a couple of centuries.

By the way, I have actually lived in the Bible Belt, and I have plenty of atheist friends there to tell me about their current situation. And surely you realize that letters written to FT are a highly self-selected sample of the population, not something on the basis of which one can generalize.

Isn't the bad cop in the good cop/bad cop situation purposely being mean? Is that really how some in the atheist movement see their role? As being intentionally mean actors? Seems like more of a rationalization than a rational plan to me.

Also, can whatever studies about the good cop/bad cop situation be extrapolated from individual to societal levels?

PZ's post is yet another example of someone who doesn't even make an attempt to understand the other's argument, and the proceeds with insults and condescending tone throughout. I'm really getting tired of this, and I am disappointed that so many atheists actually think this is intellectualism.

"The problem I have with all this is that we really don’t know the best way to achieve our goals. We all have preferences, but not much hard data to support a particular tactic. Yes, religiosity seems to be in decline but we can’t say for sure why. It may have nothing at all to do with PZ and Richard Dawkins and Julia Sweeney."

I was oppressed as an Atheist, and it wasn't just a guilt trip. You really should learn about the harm that religion causes Atheists.

I wrote a book about my experiences, having to cope with Christians being in control of my life, and forcing me to worship their god. It was a very real form of mental and physical slavery.

The book is "Leaving the Quiet Room," and it's available at Evolvefish.com. Religion causes our people harm too. That's not just a gripe, it's a fact. ALL of our people deserve some representation, when speaking out about the harm of religion. We DO have a civil rights movement, because we HAVE been discriminated against and abused. You just have to meet us, I suppose.

The first time I ever came across Professor Pigliucci was at the CFI-NY Darwin Day event a few years back. Here we go again. That day, the professor hosted a Q&A with the lecturer of the day, a recipient of a Templeton Foundation grant (it's funny how religious people often claim that science has nothing to say about religion but that religion has much to say about science). Anyway, you'd think that someone with a bone to pick about Darwinian evolution should advertise that fact when hosting a Darwin Day event, but obviously CFI-NY and the professor didn't find a fault with it.

Now I see a claim that we atheists should suck it up to whatever injustice we face, because there are worse abuses elsewhere. Why am I not surprised?

Why do so many commenters at Pharyngula use such vulgar language? It seems like every other comment is "F this, F that." Jeez. I never see that kind of thing here or on many other blogs. Does PZ create that kind of atmosphere?

Re "I would say that the way atheists are treated today in the Bible Belt is actually worse, on average, than the way gays and blacks are treated."

To offer my own anecdotal experiences, I was raised in the Bible Belt by a father who was an atheist and very nearly a Marxist (an analytical Marxist, actually). He never experienced any maltreatment (or if he did, I was never aware of it).

I myself identified as an atheist around age 15 - 16 and quickly became a militant atheist. I never experienced any maltreatment.

Also, about 70 - 80% of Southern philosophy faculties are atheists (I infer this from the PhilPages survey), and I cannot imagine that their social and professional lives are that bad. My friends who teach in the South, though they often complain about the general social conservativeness of the South, never report maltreatment. (As an aside, I would argue that a theist at a any institution- Southern or otherwise- has a much tougher time in the profession than an atheist.)

By the way, Massimo, one point: I like what you've outlined, but I wouldn't label it atheist activism," but instead "secular activism," or something else more encompassing. Atheist activism, to me, is limited to arguing for atheism/the acceptance of atheists, and maybe church-state seperation. Secular (or some other word) activism encompasses defending and promoting seperation of church and state, naturalism, reason, rationalism, etc. It's much bigger than atheism. As we should be.

The reason I don't give my full name when posting is that I would likely be fired for writing anti-religious views. It would be perceived as negatively impacting my company's brand having a public atheist on their payroll.

I understand the comparison with black and gay individuals is on a different scale (no-one has beaten me up for being an atheist...yet) but be in no doubt that, outside of the privileged world of academic freedom, the rest of us live in the real world where being an atheist can cost your job.

I realize I am a sample of 1, so unlike Jeffery (who you accuse of sampling error) or yourself Massimo (who in refuting Jeffery cites atheists you know in a way that apparently isn't a sampling error), I am just putting this out as a very real experience.

Again, I do not mean to discard experiences like yours. I simply think that in the whole they are not comparable to the problems that blacks suffered in the South for so long.

Michael,

> Does PZ create that kind of atmosphere? <

You think? Must be good for traffic and ads revenues. (This isn't a slur, btw, PZ is on record as saying that he makes a substantial amount of money from his blog.)

Imagine,

> the professor hosted a Q&A with the lecturer of the day, a recipient of a Templeton Foundation grant ... you'd think that someone with a bone to pick about Darwinian evolution should advertise that fact when hosting a Darwin Day event, but obviously CFI-NY and the professor didn't find a fault with it. <

That's right, I don't. The Templeton is an organization that I expressly do not support (see: http://goo.gl/fzrje) but I don't think it is right to ostracize colleagues who do.

> Now I see a claim that we atheists should suck it up to whatever injustice we face, because there are worse abuses elsewhere. <

First, I don't see the connection. Second, I never said anything of the sort.

CFI has hosted many scientists who have done work with/through/for Templeton for lectures and panel discussions on their area of scientific expertise. I don't see why we would exclude these brilliant minds simply because of said involvement.

Massimo Pigliucci, you can repeat a thousand more times that atheists today in the USA and other developed countries don't face the same discrimination as, etc., but what is your point? That atheists in these countries should not take lessons from the Civil Rights movement or the feminist movement or the gay movement? Why on earth shouldn't we learn from history? Including the fact that those movements too have faced this kind of silencing tactics. Even African Americans who stood up against segregation were too often told that they shouldn't complain so loudly, because their lot in life had got better since the abolition of slavery. Women who fight discrimination in politics or the office are told that their problems are small potatoes compared to what goes on in Islamic countries. Gay people are told that since the laws making homosexuality illegal were repelled, they shouldn't be so vocal now. And so on.

Aanyway, how about atheists who, like PZ or Dawkins, support the cause of atheists in other parts of the world, places where you can't openly say that you don't believe in God for fear of being murdered by religious zealots? Shouldn't they use their tribunes to give a shoutout to activists like Mariam Namazie or Taslima Nasreen, who support not only women's rights in Muslim countries, but also freedom of thought?

On a more philosophical basis, how about the point made by Stephanie Zwan at Almost Diamonds: the fact that religious propagandists can always resort to the infallibility of God’s Word (or what they define so) to trump every rational, well-thought and polite argument leveled against them.

There is data to support that contention. One example, for instance, I remember one of the guests on the SGU podcast (I think it was Dr. Ray Greek, episode #290) who explained that he was raised in a fundamentalist Christian community and managed to go through college and even medical school while staying a creationist, and that it wasn’t only when he started questioning the validity of what was written in the Bible that he could accept the validity of evolution. He explained that the fundies aren’t swayed by logic, science and evidence because for them, the Word of God (or what they define as so) trumps everything.

Just one more anecdote, you may well say, but it's a good illustration of what the defenders of reason are up against. As we say, you can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Thank you for posting - this is very similar to an argument I have been putting forward for some time. It is not religious belief per se which is an issue- but extremism and fanatacicm- which seems to be rife in the USA- if people are bullied for being atheist ( such a normal thing) they are by definition living among fanatics and extremists.

You sound like you are trying to trivialize the discrimination that occurs to atheists by what you said in your post and subsequent comments whether that was your intention or not. It's kind of like telling black people in the North to not complain about their treatment because it is not as bad as the treatment of black people in the South. Whether or not the consequences of being an atheist are as severe as being black or gay in the past, I don't think it invalidates making a civil rights comparison. I also don't think it trivializes those other civil rights movements.

Also, if there is not any data on whether which method (nice or in-your-face) works better, then doesn't it make sense to withhold criticism of their methods until that data comes in. I would like to generally employ the nice method, but I think it is silly to criticize the in-your-face method if there is no data to support the way I do things over the way other's do things.

I just read PZ's response over at FTB. I noticed he resorted to using his Comic Sans Serif font thingie when quoting your post. That used to be amusing when mocking I.D. and woo crack-pots, but when wielded against fellow skeptics/atheist/freethinkers, as he also did once against Donald Prothero from Skepticblog, it loses any effectiveness; more like a form of intellectual bullying in my opinion.

And I agree with Michael on the comments, right off the first one resorts to name-calling ("piggie"), the second commenter wants to punch you in the face.

This blog post is silly. As a woman who grew up with fundamentalist religion, I can tell you that theists cause real and lasting harm to many people. If atheists aren't willing to stand up and tell theists what they are doing is completely unacceptable, then who will? You don't have to intervene and tell them to stop hurting people if you don't want to, however, you don't have the right to tell me not to confront them. I will not play nice with abusers. Don't tell me I should.

obviously I have trouble getting my point across, which must be my fault. I never argued that we shouldn't speak up in defense of the rights of atheists, or to condemn abuses. I simple said that: a) the situation is bad, but in no way comparable to that of blacks in the segregated south, which I think is a straightforward matter of historical record; and b) that treating people with respect is far more likely to get results than insulting them.

While there are no data that I'm aware of concerning the specifics of the atheist movement, there is psychological research showing that confrontation simply entrenches people in their positions. And insult is the worst type of confrontation.

Also, I never said anything about changing the minds of fundamentalists. It can't be done, except in rare occasions. Our focus is the middle ground, the fence sitters, who are - I think - much more likely to be reached by clear arguments respectfully put forth than by mouth frothing a la PZ and Coyne.

You may disagree with part or all of the above, but I don't see anything "silly" about it, and I think you need to disagree with what I actually wrote, not with what you think I meant.

Unfortunately the goals above ignore the fact that defenseless and gullible children are indoctrinated into a world of supernatural beliefs. Once they are there ... it is hard for them to get free. If children were being indoctrinated into witchcraft without secular intervention perhaps your goals would look different ... why treat one form of mythology with a blind eye over others? The indoctrination of minors into religion is strongly viewed as a form of abuse by many of us, including Dawkins. I wish someone would have come to my defense when I was being indoctrinated. Children are human beings too!

On content: The best, and almost only, tactic that has worked for separating church and state is suing the bastards. That's about as in your face as you can get. But it works. As for ecumenical bridges, can you cite one?

On tone:

Massimo, PZ cited multiple paragraph-long quotes from your post. (Feelings hurt by Comic Sans! Are you kidding?) Then he argued against them. You completely dismissed his post. If you think you're not understood, or not making your point clearly, then you should want to fix the situation. Being fed up isn't a defense.

Michael, leave the commentors alone. Like PZ said, different strokes for different folks. If your undies bunch with a F-bomb or two, stay away.

Massimo, you say that you didn't want to argue against speaking up for the rights of atheists. Great. But in that case what you wrote, and the way you wrote it, didn't convey very well that idea. In fact, it went a long way to trivialise the very real hurdles that atheists encounter in real world, everyday situations, even in First World countries -- not to mention the situation of non-believers in, say, Nigeria or Pakistan. If you are aware of all this, then why would you insist that atheists shouldn't compare their plight to gays, feminists or African Americans? If you stand with this statement, then indeed, I disagree with what you actually wrote!

(There is also the involuntary irony of citing a post by Greta Christina -- a female gay atheist militant -- to argue against drawing these sorts of parallels... Ahem.)

On the matter of "mouth frothing" atheists: is it reasonable to criticize them for being rude while using ad hominem to describe them? If you think there are instances where uncouth language is justified for then, then maybe you should also admit that PZ Myers can find occasions of his own when he thinks it's justified to be rude. Wouldn't that be logical?

You argue that "confrontation simply entrenches people in their positions", but do you have evidence that it's always the case? How about the testimonies that both Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers's supporters have given about being shaken out of religious complacency by vocal and confrontational criticism? You can't just dismiss them.

Finally, you conclude that "our focus is the middle ground", I'll grant that you have chosen to focuse on the middle ground, but can you honestly decide that all atheists, or even that rational atheists, should also have the same focus? There are people whose goal is to move the Overton window, or to make atheism as a movement a substantial part of the public debate. This is not less worthy a goal than winning over the moderate believers. In fact, I gave in my previous comment the example of Ray Greek to show how even a fundamentalist Christian can come to rethink his certitudes, given the right circumstances.

You may agree or not, but please think seriously about these objections.

"You may disagree with part or all of the above, but I don't see anything "silly" about it, and I think you need to disagree with what I actually wrote, not with what you think I meant."You really don't see the irony in this statement, do you?

It seems like semantics to me, Massimo. Being an atheist, gay or minority are VERY comparable; they just aren't equivalent. Are you seriously suggesting that discussion of the parallels between them is implied equivalence?

As a partially-closeted atheist, I've seen the benefits and risks of public atheism. I've gotten support and approval from those I'd never expect, including hardcore theists. This happened, I like to think, because most people seem to perceive me as a kind, generous, caring person. If I can be an atheist, then maybe atheists aren't all so bad. And since I'm already a part of their lives, I can't be easily pigeonholed as an Alien Other.

But I've also personally been called a bigot and hate-criminal by elected officials for publicly stating a negative opinion of religion. Religion holds my loved ones hostage; I have immediate family members who'd disavow me if they ever knew I was an atheist. Those few who do know are generally devastated, and I'm tempted into misdirected anger towards them as they refuse to even attempt to comprehend, let alone accept, my position while simultaneously demanding I present a public face of blithe acceptance of theirs.

Religion is forcing me to watch in silence as one young relative slides into magical thinking at the encouragement of their family and peers, and another grows into an actual hateful, sexist, homophobic bigot despite having quite possibly the kindest heart I've ever known. One of my closest friends, a brilliant mind deeply concerned with social justice, would sever our friendship with great acrimony; I watched him do it to another over this very issue, just as I watched his equally brilliant feminist wife embrace the role of female submissive.

How do you think all that makes me feel?

I was never one of those atheists who was angry at religion...until I started noticing the effects it was having on those close to me, and until I attempted to come out. Now, I'm mad. I keep my anger leashed because that's who I am, but I think I have a right to be angry. I don't think I deserve to be shushed when talking about atheism and religion just because someone won't want to hear what I have to say. I don't think I deserve to be misrepresented when I point out that my experiences echo the value gays found in coming out as a tool for social change, if unlike myself one has the courage to face the consequences.

I will continue to compare my experiences with those of other oppressed groups, and at this stage of my atheistic life, I feel no sorrow over your offense.

When people use the proliferation of atheist groups as evidence for success in people becoming less religious/more rational, I seriously question where their critical thinking goes. The internet has made it easier for a lot of previously isolated demographics to form communities. In addition, as every rational thinker worth their salt can tell you, correlation is not causation.

But then again, who needs evidence when you have faith that what you're doing is effective, right?

"First, atheists really ought not to compare themselves to blacks or gays, as it is an insult to people who have experienced real discrimination."

This is what you said. When saying something like this, you are implying that atheist are not people who do not experience "real discrimination" (what that is). I think you should have definitely chosen your words better. I don't think the comparisons are necessarily unseemly.

My point is that since there is not any definitive empirical evidence on the issue of tone, it doesn't seem fair to criticize the in-your-facers (which doesn't necessarily mean insulting) because they haven't provided evidence that their method works better when there is not a great deal of empirical evidence that your method is definitively better.

Also, I do think it is a little hypocritical for you to be insulting towards Myers, Dawkins, and Coyne and then complain about them being insulting. If you think that being insulting isn't effective in changing anyone's mind, then wouldn't it make sense to never, ever be insulting. Also, it there a clear line between being insulting and being firm in your criticism. Some people think that even questioning their cherished beliefs is insulting. Does that mean that we shouldn't criticize those beliefs? I don't think it does.

I've read the OP and all of the comments. Why is it so many accommodationists are willing to be nice to theists but refuse to extend the same courtesy to other atheists? I'm a gnu atheist. I have no problem with what you guys are doing. I wish you all the best and I hope your efforts bear fruit. What I find frustrating is your refusal to take the same attitude towards atheists like me.

Okay, you don't like the swearing that goes on at Pharyngula. So what? If you don't like Pharyngula then don't go to one of the most popular atheist blogs. Nobody is holding a gun to your heads and ordering you to read Pharyngula.

No, that pointing and tut-tutting are pointless. On second thought, now that you have brought the supposed-to-be-devastating "relativism" charge into the debate, through passive-aggressive rhetorical questions, I'll take the bait. Yes, I am an approach relativist. Each person should be able to engage with their goals in any non-violent approach they want. Each approach will be unique and all approaches are equally valid. As all agree, there is no empirical evidence to judge approaches by, so I don't see what is wrong about allowing all to go about their business without meddling from approach absolutists.

I agree with your commentary on the approaches of activism Massimo, especially as an atheist whose atheism has become more and more incidental to a broader humanistic approach when thinking about anything and everything. Both in terms of effectiveness and conducting the argument in an ethical manner, the good-cop wins hands down. We're not be out to make anybody unhappy by insulting them... are we?

That said, the 'blow-hards' like Hitchens do provide a popularised way-in to the materials/opinions of more nuanced advocates of rationalism in the public sphere. I'm not so sure how easy it would be to swap the 'NAs' for friendly, relentlessly positive profs and still get the same exposure!

I have been an atheist, determinist, moral nihilist, and eliminitivist for nearly 50 years. Along the way, I was surrounded by people I cared about that had their identity, social status, sense of meaning of their lives, wrapped up in their religious beliefs. They felt that doing for others was important and their belief was their motivating force and source of meaning. I was always aware of the damage I could do to those I cared about if I was successful in convincing them that they were living a fantasy. I have listened to what many of you have said.....and I draw the conclusion that ideologically committed non-believers are as uncaring, vengeful, willing to destroy people in the name of their ideology, as any other extremists or new-born zealots. Religions have existed for thousands of years. Billions of people have been and are believers. Most are harmless and their religion buoys them and comforts them through hardships of life. Many of you are born again atheists. Zealots. God is dead. Big deal. Get used to it and get some wisdom and empathy for others less fortunate in life than yourself.

Does "in-your-face" atheism work? It did work extremely well in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, India.

The social reformer, EV Ramaswamy Naikar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periyar_E._V._Ramasamy), changed the socio-political landscape of Tamil Nadu by espousing militant atheism. He openly mocked the religious characters in Ramayana, the religious epic of Hindus, he broke idols of Hindu gods on the street, .... Today, no politician (even religious ones) or political party hoping to come to power in Tamil Nadu can utter a word against EVR. All Chief Ministers (including the current one, Ms Jayalalitha, a believer) invariably visit his memorial on his birth anniversary to garland his statue.

Dravida Kazhagam, an organization founded by him, today runs clinics, schools, colleges, and even a full fledged, government recognized, Deemed University (Periyar-Maniyammai University, Thanjavur) in Tamil Nadu. They publish daily and weekly periodicals in Tamil. “Modern Rationalist”, an English Monthly, published by them regularly reprints articles from Skeptical Inquirer, Free Inquiry etc. I don't know about US, but "in-your-face atheism" worked extremely well in one of the Indian states and helped uplifting a class of people who were treated as untouchables (based on scriptural arguments) by the upper-caste Hindus.

Dr BR Ambedkar, a dalit (formerly untouchables), who was the first Law Minister of independent India and was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of Indian Constitution, had written “Riddles of Hinduism” (http://www.ambedkar.org/riddleinhinduism/), scathingly attacking Hindu scriptures. He was honored, posthumously, in 1990 with the highest national honor of "Bharata Ratna" (The Jewel of India) by the Indian Government. He is today highly respected by millions of dalits and other progressive people in India.

I do not always advocate "militant atheism", but it need not/will not be a hindrance to anybody from being accepted/respected by the society - at least in India.

Generally, I agree with your arguments, although I wonder, somewhat parenthetically, whether, as the cant goes, one can really derive an ought (not) from an is in this case, at least:

First, atheists really ought not to compare themselves to blacks or gays, as it is an insult to people who have experienced real discrimination.

Apart from the obvious fact that analogies can have quite a bit of utility if they’re not pushed too far, I certainly agree that the odiousness of the discrimination in the different cases there is, generally at least, the difference between night and day. But it still seems to me that many of the depredations of the religious, and religion, certainly seems to warrant some degree of measured anger and consequential actions. For example, I wonder, have you ever seen Greta Christiana’s “bill of particulars" (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html) in that regard? If even one-third of the cases that she describes are at all reliable I would say that there is more than enough reason for anger.

Although she does note that the use of that anger can be somewhat problematic, as it certainly seems that an uncomfortably large percentage of the new atheists are more than a little self-indulgent in their criticisms and actions – emotion tending to cloud one’s judgement. In addition, there seems to be a somewhat related and questionable sense of purpose that motivates many – sort of an “Arrow in the Blue”, a term which Arthur Koestler used to describe his experiences in the Communist Party – that seems inadequately defined and acknowledged and justified. While such purposes are certainly important there is the ever present danger of putting the cart before the horse – which is not always easily discernible, much less manageable.

However, in spite of all of those caveats, I still think that, like the joke about the man hitting the mule over the head just “to get its attention” prior to the use of more gentle methods, the new atheists have a valid argument for the analogous use of anger – suitably channeled and tempered and measured – and in-your-face type of arguments. For example, I seem to recollect that while you are apparently not keen about the argument that religious education qualifies as indoctrination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination) (though I wonder how many catechism classes provide an opportunity to “question or critically examine the doctrines”), you also noted the difficulties that many have in breaking free from such programming. But that whole process, as described here (http://edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html) by the British psychologist Nicholas Humphrey who characterizes it as one in which children’s minds were “addled by nonsense” – and over a period of literally one hundred generations, seems so egregious, so horrific, so damnable that one is at a loss for epithets strong enough to condemn it. Really not sufficient, in my opinion, to rest, for very long anyway and absent any substantial efforts from the other side, on a “live and let live” policy – “fiddling while Rome burns” being rather counter-productive.

Relative to which I notice that you are on the advisory board of the Secular Coalition of America and I’m curious why the SCA has not yet seen fit to weigh-in against the delay in ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which, with its guarantee of a right to the freedom of “thought, conscience and religion” for them, might actually do something positive in reducing if not entirely eliminating such abuses.

As a black atheist, I'm inclined to agree with Massimo on the point that being an atheist is not akin to being black. There are many parts of the country that I would not want to visit after sunset; so-called sundown towns. In fact, I've had race related incidents in broad daylight. Regardless of how I dress or carry myself, without even having said or expressed anything, some people will have a problem with me. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time means being at risk for being beaten, tortured, raped or lynched. So... racism and other forms pose somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison. Both are valid, and sure, they're both fruit, SOME parallels can be drawn... but those parallels are limiting and we shouldn't get too carried away with it (i.e. assuming all forms of discrimination are the same and should be dealt with thusly.)

I too have lived in the south for many years without incident against my family or atheists friends. Obviously this again is only anecdotal and is not evidence that it does not occur, but it still belies the comparison to blacks or homosexuals where abuse was the rule rather than the exception.

On the other hand, I do know a couple of people who have no god belief, yet strenuously avoid the "atheist" label because they associate it with negative rants (like the ones from Greta Christina and PZ). And in this case, there actually have been some recent surveys where large percentages of those without god beliefs also do not use the "atheist" label. Of course, the data can't tell us the reason for sure, but do you think Christina and PZ have ever wondered why?

They felt that doing for others was important and their belief was their motivating force and source of meaning. I was always aware of the damage I could do to those I cared about if I was successful in convincing them that they were living a fantasy.

I can sympathize as I am in a somewhat similar situation. And I can agree that people should be allowed to choose that way of life and those values if they wish. However, when they seek to impose those on others – as a number of others, including Nicholas Humphrey (http://edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html) and Richard Dawkins, have persuasively argued is the case with the indoctrination that passes for religious “education” – then that seems to justify, if not call for, drawing the proverbial line in the sand.

… and I draw the conclusion that ideologically committed non-believers are as uncaring, vengeful, willing to destroy people in the name of their ideology, as any other extremists or new-born zealots

A rather categorical statement that is not at all justified; certainly some might exhibit the worst features of Stalinism, although I’m not sure if there were any good features of it, but that is a rather wide brush to be tarring the whole movement of “atheist activism”.

Get used to it and get some wisdom and empathy for others less fortunate in life than yourself.

Apart from the fact that one might argue that they are “less fortunate” because they’ve been saddled with delusions for which the best remedy is education, you think that maybe Hitchens wasn’t, and a great many others with similar views and values aren’t, horrified at the thought of the depredations of the religious?

And surely you realize that letters written to FT are a highly self-selected sample of the population, not something on the basis of which one can generalize.

I'm not talking about the letters to FT, I'm talking about the news items reported in the mainstream media that are reprinted in FT. My offer to give you a subscription still stands.

It looks to me like you're grasping at anything to avoid admitting you might be wrong.

and once again I think you are way off the mark in the comparison with what blacks were suffering in the South for a couple of centuries.

I didn't say anything about "a couple of centuries". I am comparing the way gays and blacks are treated today with the way atheists are treated today.

To give just one example, I recently attended a talk at a Catholic institution of higher learning where the speaker (a noted professor) said about atheists, "We used to burn them!" and got a big laugh. Imagine if he had said the same thing about black people or Jews.

Thanks for this blog, and sorry for the delay in writing my response. As an atheist married to a progressive Christian, I also have frustration at times with those in the New Atheist movement who seem to actively disrespect our relationship. (In spite of what they tend to believe about Christians, my wife shares all her "most important values" with me, with the exception of a belief in God. I decided for me, that one exception isn't worth quibbling over.

I've written up a longer perspective on my own blog, if you and your readers don't mind reading ...

Frankly, the type of world that might exist if the present group of atheists were to somehow gain control of the levers of power is not one in which I would wish to live.Rarely is anything positive offered.Virtually all of the positive values which they espouse are simply warmed over Christianity without God, or the benefit of a firm foundation.And, when given the chance, the results to date have been abysmal.

TL;DR: Screw half of you, the man was trying to make a good point (and mostly did so) and all you've done is whine.

I enjoyed this article, but I cringed at the use of the word "evil" in the last paragraph, as some others here have. Granted that I understand what one means when they use the term in a nonreligious context (bad things that humans do), evil to me implies badness to such a degree that the person how committed the act are deserving of "worse" than death.

Which of course implies a "worse" than death (torture? some kind of after-death?) and leaves it open to declare anything we find incredibly distasteful as "evil." "Well gee, I can't stand fascism, it must be evil. So are the gays. And witches."

I doubt there is anything a human can do to be "worthy" of death (and worse)--though we are very frequently (even in this comment thread!) very "unworthy" of one another.

As to the most recent assertion, that "good atheism is just warmed-over christianity without a god," I imagine this must come from a mind very familiar with the idea of half-assed christianity. Though I was raised fundamentalist christian (Seventh-day Adventist, in fact), I used the principles of the Church of Satan to reclaim my dignity, and have rebuilt my worldview from these and and heaping dose of Discordianism--not from a goodless Jesus.

Further, I would point out (in a strongly Nietzschean manner) that Jesus and the Judeo-Christian tradition are not only bad, but as close to evil as I'd be willing to feel about something. Remember, of course, that I use the word as a term for "severe distaste," and for nothing else, and imply no ill treatment of them in my doing-so--just that I'd never consider for a moment "going back." I have no problem working with humans on a project, as long as we can both meet our goals as closely as possible (hell, as long as I can meet mine as closely as possible) without getting into dogma. Wouldn't that be easier with a strong separation of Church and State? "I'm sorry Senator, but your appeal to emotion is of a religious nature, which we all agreed would be left out of this discussion. I move that we strike it from the record." Ah, refreshing, no?

This is an old thread, but it was on the Rationally Speaking home page, and it's new to me.

Much of this is argument over anecdotes and irresolvable, and hence less interesting.

But there seems to be a huge flaw in the initial post, which is the assertion that the problem with religion is something called "dogmatism." Which frankly pretty says Prof. Piglucci has a problem with people he personally thinks are ill-mannered. Religion is not an abstract set of ideas in someone's head, but a social institution. Critiquing personality traits is not a substitute for genuine analysis of religion.